All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (the part concerning robbery) the Defendants found the victim to receive money obtained by deception from the injured party, and did not forcibly withdraw the property or property benefits, and thus did not have any intent to commit robbery. Thus, the assault committed by the Defendants did not cause the victim to resist.

Defendants’ act is not a robbery but a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

B) The injured party’s wife cannot be deemed as an injury under the Criminal Act, as a state where natural healing is possible.

In addition, the Defendants become aware of the existence of the claim owned by the victim after they assaulted the victim and sustained the injury, so there is no relation between robbery and the result of the injury.

C) Defendant A did not directly assault the victim, and Defendant B did not have conspired to assault the victim, and thus, Defendant A cannot be deemed as a joint principal offender for the crime of robbery.

D) The Defendants: (a) sought a victim to hear a solution due to the victim’s awareness of fraud; and (b) attempted to commit assault and assault the victim to prevent the victim from escaping; and (c) sustained injury.

Therefore, the above Defendants’ acts constitute justifiable acts under Article 20 of the Criminal Act, which constitute grounds for excluding illegality.

2) The sentencing of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s misunderstanding of facts (in the part of robbery) as to Defendant B’s assaulted the victim with an intent to inform the victim of retaliation and damage caused by the economic or mental damage that had been inflicted by the victim during the period, and there was no intention to forcibly take money from the victim.

B) The victim’s wife cannot be seen as an injury to robbery.

2) The sentencing of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination.